Read up, Ms. Rice

From today’s editorials: Kathleen Rice’s first mistake was proposing a law that was, essentially, already on the books. Her second was in not admitting she was wrong.

___________________

In a normal year, well over 10,000 bills are proposed in the state Legislature. Some are old bills, recycled from past years. Others are duplicates, put in for political bragging rights. One bill might become law, while another just like it, or similar, might die. So we can understand a layman losing track of things.

But not a lawyer. Not a district attorney. And certainly not a would-be attorney general.

So Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice’s attempt to make a campaign issue out of a law that she claims doesn’t exist — but in fact does — isn’t just a minor political spat. It’s an unseemly moment in an attorney general’s race that until now has been vigorous, but mostly on the high ground, where it should be.

This started with a campaign commercial, Ms. Rice’s third, in which she said she would fight to make it a felony to lure a child on the Internet. In a debate, she declared that, “We have no luring statute here in the state of New York.” She went on to chide Sen. Eric Schneiderman, one of her opponents in the primary, for holding up a luring bill in the Senate Codes Committee.

The fact, however, is that New York enacted a luring statute in 2008. It’s a crime to lure a child, period.

The bill Ms. Rice is touting appears to have been recycled year after year since 2007. The memo on it is so outdated that it, like Ms. Rice, continues to assert that the state has no luring law. That’s plainly wrong.

We can understand Ms. Rice being embarrassed by this gaffe. Between a television commercial and her statements in a debate, she has a lot invested in this non-issue. And the strategy behind the initial attack was clear, trying to portray an opponent as not just soft on crime, but soft on child sex predators. It’s a nasty tactic that unfortunately has been a standard part of the political tool kit lately. The problem is, Ms. Rice now looks like a DA who doesn’t know the law on child sex crimes.

The smart, prudent thing to do would be to acknowledge the error and move on.

Instead, Ms. Rice compounds the mistake by insisting she is right when she clearly is wrong.

The law is on the books. It’s not a matter of opinion. Ms. Rice owes the voters better than a fake issue in one of the state’s most important races.

One Response

It’s not that clear cut. I looked at the law, and ths standards are different.

The TU seems so in the tank for Schneiderman that you just don’t print anything negative- and there’s plenty of it.

Did you ever run the story about his hit and run? He changed his story,and it’s impossible to not notice $3000 in damage. He clearly lied. Shouldn’t he just admit he was wrong? He never did…he drove away after sideswiping a car, and didn’t leave a note.

I’m a lawyer, and I think the luring law is a debatable issue. Prosecutors would reasonably want a more comprehensive statute than what’s on the books. Schneiderman’s hit and run is clear cut- and inexcusable. A little balance please?